Optimal test parameters for computerized quantitative layer-by-layer perimetry

Laboratory Investigations


Quantitative layer-by-layer perimetry is a psychophysical technique believed to assess the functional characteristics of individual retinal layers. In the initial design of the technique, the test procedure was too time consuming for the testing of large field point patterns, and statistical treatment of the measured threshold values was difficult. Therefore, to minimize these limitations, a new design of quantitative layer-by-layer perimetry was developed by incorporating the technique into the existing hardware environment of the computerized perimeter Humphrey Field Analyzer. The present paper describes the theoretical considerations and experimental findings underlying a selection of optimal stimulus parameters to provide a basis for statistical treatment of measured threshold values, and to minimize test duration, while obtaining an acceptable estimate of the threshold level with minimum variance.


Statistical Treatment Test Parameter Minimum Variance Initial Design Test Duration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barlow HB (1958) Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities. J Physiol (Lond) 141:337–350Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bebié H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J (1976) Static perimetry: strategies. Acta Ophthalmol 54:325–338Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bek T (1992) Quantitative layer-by-layer perimetry adapted to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). I. Design of methodology and instrumentation. Acta Ophthalmol 70:470–476Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bek T (1992) Quantitative layer-by-layer perimetry adapted to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). II. Centre-surround interaction produced by sustained surround stimulation. Acta Ophthalmol 70:477–481Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bek T (1992) Quantitative layer-by-layer perimetry adapted to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). III. Centre-surround interaction produced by transient surround stimulation. Area characteristics of the transient stimulus pattern. Acta Ophthalmol 70:482–488Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enoch J (1978) Quantitative layer-by layer perimetry. Proctor lecture. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17:208–257Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Enoch J, Sunga RN, Bachmann E (1970) Static perimetric technique believed to test receptive field properties. I. Extension of Westheimer's experiments on spatial interaction. Am J Ophthalmol 70:113–126Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flammer J (1986) The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 224:389–392Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flammer J, Augustiny L, Funkhouser A (1985) Quantification of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:176–181Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heijl A (1977) Time changes of contrast thresholds during automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol 55:696–708Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heijl A (1977) Computer test logics for automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol 55:837–853Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR (1992) Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:2966–2974Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kendall MG (1955) Rank correlation methods, 2nd edn. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moses RA (ed) (1975) Adler's physiology of the eye Mosby, St. Louis, p 660Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spahr J (1975) Optimization of the presentation pattern in automated static perimetry. Vision Res 15:1275–1281Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wood JM, Wild JM, Hussey MK, Crews SJ (1987) Serial examinations of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry. Evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol 65:326–333Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Bek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Aarhus, Aarhus KommunehospitalAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations